T.D., a minor, was shown a video explaining his Boykin rights upon his arrest, and his attorney represented to the Lake County Superior Court that he had informed T.D. and T.D.’s mother of T.D.’s rights. The juvenile court did not discuss T.D.’s rights or reference a video before accepting T.D.’s admission to committing what would be level 6 felony auto theft if committed by an adult. T.D. filed a Trial Rule 60(B)(6) motion to set aside the judgment arguing it was void. The juvenile court denied the motion. A divided panel of the Court of Appeals reversed, holding the failure to advise T.D. of his rights on the day of his admission made the judgment void. T.D. v. State, 198 N.E.3d 1197 (Ind. Ct. App. 2022), vacated. The Indiana Supreme Court has granted a petition to transfer and accepted jurisdiction over the case.